Banned from Christianity

Masteroid

I was banned from the Christianity forum for two weeks by Plowman and I consider this an outrage considering the discussion that was going on and would characterise the ban as an attempt to gag me in order to prevent me from expounding my very reasonable and logical view.

The thread in question is 'Atheism/Existence of God debate'.

I came into the discussion in order to point out that if the Hebrew God of the bible exists then the existence of Satan is a given and since Satan is the Lord of the earth with the power to take the form of serpent or man, to cause disease, to deceive and incite men to evil, we should be more analytical in who we credit the inspiration of the bible to.

And I simply wanted to have an honest and thought-provoking discussion along these lines.

Most, if not all of us, approach the bible having been appraised that God is the epitomy of 'good' but reading the bible with that in mind leads to cognitive dissonance regarding God-sanctioned kidnap, rape, murder and genocide which can only be reconciled by replacing logical, reasoned judgement with unquestioning faith.

I then went on to make the point that if we approached the bible as a text inspired by Satan then without changing a single word in the bible, it makes more sense and there would be no cognitive dissonance as we would expect Satan to preach kidnap, rape, murder and genocide.

I made these points and my view was accompanied by many passages from the bible.

It will be seen from a cursary examination of my posts that a great deal of thought, effort and time went into composing them and the arguments offered are entirely cogent.

Over the last weeks, a discussion of Mosaic law and its implications has come about and this has run parallel with the discussion of how biblical text should be interpreted and the two discussions are converging on one another.

I recognise that the force of a reasoned argument might be troublesome to those whose have only ever used faith-based arguments but, and as I have said repeatedly, if our souls do exist and have real value then we should be more circumspect in relation to how we choose to dispose of those souls.

If God exists then it is entirely possible that, given the tenor of the Old Testament, given that Satan has the power to take human form, the power to cause disease, the power to deceive men and to incite them to evil, given that Satan has the title of 'Lord of the Earth', Satan may actually be the one who inspired the bible.

And this is what I was trying to discuss.

Now, there are two ways that religionists can approach such a discussion. One way is to deal with the 'sense' contained in the points made and try to make an argument that refutes that sense and thereby avail of an opportunity to either learn something new and grow or to change my mind so that I grow or both.

The other way is to completely ignore the substance of the post and instead attack the author of the post in an attempt to discredit him.

The latter has been the mode d'emploi of almost all of the Christians who post in opposition to me, most of whom are generally quite rude and disrespectful in their tone.

Which can be frustrating. But I'm a big boy and I can take the 'playground knocks' as it were.

However, the Modding has been somewhat one-sided in regard to the application of the forum charter and it is noteworthy, I think, that all the infractions handed out in the course of this thread seem to have gone solely to non-Christians.

The modding has not been equitable.

For instance, I was infracted for using the term 'You people...' in reference to Christians whereas Tommy2Bad referred to non-Christians as 'The rest of ye...' and this went by without comment. The two terms are equivalently general.

Recently I composed a post and Jimitime 'responded' with a lengthy post that addressed not a single issue I had raised. Instead he took the tack of effectively accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, he said he would rather stick needles in his eye than go to the trouble of educating me and stated that I make assumptions that are broken to be replaced by new faulty assumptions, two-hundred times and that then I rinse and repeat.

None of this is true. I have sometimes restated points that have not been answered but I do not repeatedly ask questions that have been answered.

Indeed, since the majarity of the substance of my posts make points that actually constitute answers, many of the questions I write are rhetorical.

Or else I make a point and then pose a question.

(For instance, in the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom, God has to actually go to Sodom to see if what is said about the abominations in the city are true.

Contrast this with the story of Joseph who is sold into slavery by his brothers. In this story God interpets dreams for Joseph that allow him to know the future.

Why does an omniscient God need to go to Sodom to know the truth?

And how can a God who doesn't know what has happened in the past know the future?

There is nothing evasive at all about this style of posting and the questions I ask are greatly deserving of answers, in my view.

Where are the assumptions, where have I been repetitive and where have I been rude?)

A few posts later, Fanny Cradock posted a supporting response to Jimitime's claim that I ask the same two-hundred questions over and over, where he accuses me of employing a 'scattergun technique' which is undeniably an attempt to undermine my credibility by attacking me on a personal level.

He siad something like 'I think it's called the scattergun technique.'

In essence, Jimitime and Fanny were having a laugh at my expense by mutually endorsing a dishonest assessment of the kind of person I am.

Of course, since Jimitime and Fanny are Christians then there were no infractions for their behaviour which according to the charter is unacceptable.

But like I said, I can defend myself and I responded to Fanny's post with something like, 'Actually it's called living in cuckoo land' as a reference to his and Jimitime's dishonesty.

And for this I was banned.

I think Plowman has acted unfairly in his application of the rules showing open bias in favour of Christians which I think is outrageous.

The ban came at an important point in the discussion which I find suspicious and on that basis, there should be concerns about prejudice and discrimination.

I would therefore appeal for the ban to be lifted.

Thank you.

Masteroid

The post in question appears to have been deleted.

Here it is:

Masteroid wrote:

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I believe this is called the scatter-gun tactic.

I believe it is called living in cuckoo land since I answer all the question I am asked and I support any premises for questions I pose.

Unless you are referring to the fact that your arguments are so shot full of holes they can't float, I would drop the scattergun claim if I were you.

I would like to raise an additional objection to the deletion of this post and request that it be re-entered into the public record.

Thank you..

Masteroid

I would like to make further submissions in order to register my concerns.

The following posts are from the Atheism/Existence of God Debate.

Post 6456:

Jimitime wrote:

Watching the regular sniggering abuse, and awful modship, I can't believe he lasted this long tbh. His selfless intentions were going to eventually lead to him considering the lack of value in trying to bring the Gospel to Kermit, Fozzy and the gang
My intentions being mostly selfish here, you'll still have me annoying yee now and again so don't fret.

Here Jimitime finds an amusing way to refer to non-Christians as 'muppets' whilst 'back-seat moderating'.

The post stands, no infraction.

Post 6460:

Jimitime wrote:

He probably wasn't qualified for this special needs class alright, but he had 22000 posts of honest endeavour at least.

Now we are all retards.

Remember, I was infracted for using the term 'You people'.

Post 6461:

Benny Cake wrote:

I'm extremely sorry to see that Phil has closed his account, while I disagreed with him on plenty of things he struck me as sincere and committed in his faith. It was a little like watching a cat wander into a dog park at times, but he showed a lot of grace despite the flak he took. Hopefully he'll return at some stage.

Non-Christians are like dogs?

But it was Benny Cake who was so offended at 'You people'.

Pos 6463:

Jimitime wrote:

And yet he had the class not to make a deal out of it, simply leave quietly. Even in his retirement, he is a class above the likes of yourself with your jibing. Good man Phil, still leading by example.

'Likes of yourself'? No infraction.

'You people'? Infracted.

And:

Masteroid wrote:

I believe it is called living in cuckoo land since I answer all the question I am asked and I support any premises for questions I pose.

Unless you are referring to the fact that your arguments are so shot full of holes they can't float, I would drop the scattergun claim if I were you.

earns me a ban.

How is this not a clear-cut case of hypocrisy?

Masteroid

Now look what's going on in that thread. I am under attack and am unable to defend myself.

Benny Cake threatened to dish out infractions for commenting about a poster who had closed his account on the basis that he was not in a position to defend himself.

Well, neither am I.

I must say that I feel a bit like a man who has been tied up and subjected to a beating by a group of masked lunatics.

And in the presence of the law.

I really must protest.

Mr E

Since it's a bank holiday weekend, you will have to bear with us. One of the category moderators will review this shortly.

Ickle Magoo

Hey there Masteroid,

I'll take a look at this tho as Mr E points out, due to it being the Easter weekend it could take a few days to get all the info.

Can I ask before I get started if, as per the flow-chart above, you've PM'd the relevant mods in the Christianity forum yourself to discuss the ban?

Masteroid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Hey there Masteroid,

I'll take a look at this tho as Mr E points out, due to it being the Easter weekend it could take a few days to get all the info.

Can I ask before I get started if, as per the flow-chart above, you've PM'd the relevant mods in the Christianity forum yourself to discuss the ban?

Yes, I did PM the Mod concerned and I felt that my best chance of justice was here.

Thank you.

Ickle Magoo

Hey there Masteroid,

Having read the exchange in question on the mega-thread, I propose lifting your ban(s) for uncivil posting within the original discussion because there are clearly numerous posters responding in a very similar fairly unpleasant, inflammatory and goading manner.

Having read the subsequent PM exchange in which you make sweeping insults both to Plowman himself and about Christians in general I propose you get a weeks ban.

The moderators of the Christianity forum have a duty to uphold the charter and protect the obvious ethos of the forum. You have a recent history of inflammatory and insulting posting in the Christianity forum and your PM exchange shows little respect for the forum's ethos. While I don't believe a ban was warranted for one poster above any other under the specific circumstances of this particular on-thread exchange, you are walking a very thin line. If you continue to post in such a derisory fashion, even in response to others doing like-wise, the inevitable and deserved conclusion will be further moderator action.

For future reference, I would recommend you read the forum charter carefully and only post accordingly. The best way to avoid moderator action is to ensure you follow due process; whether that be to report posts you find insulting rather than getting involved in on-thread spats &/or discussing any moderator action civilly before escalating to c-mods/DRP.

If you are agreeable to the proposed change in ban then I'll go ahead and alter - or you can appeal to an administrator to review now.

Masteroid

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Hey there Masteroid,

Having read the exchange in question on the mega-thread, I propose lifting your ban(s) for uncivil posting within the original discussion because there are clearly numerous posters responding in a very similar fairly unpleasant, inflammatory and goading manner.

This is acceptable.

Except for the fact that my 'unpleasant, inflammatory and goading' postings were in fact responses to previous 'unpleasant, inflammatory and goading' resonses to preceding reasonable and logical posts composed by me.

In other words, they started it.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Having read the subsequent PM exchange in which you make sweeping insults both to Plowman himself and about Christians in general I propose you get a weeks ban.

This is not acceptable.

Are we to consider a spade not a spade?

The PM was private!!!

How can you punish a man on the basis that he objected to being punished unfairly???

Which you have conceded!

If you ban me for generalising about Christians then shouldn't you ban everyone who generalises about non-Christians?

And if not, isn't there a legitimate claim of bias?

Where did I lie? Where was I dishonest?

Where didn't I meet like with like?

No! If I deserve a ban then so does almost everyone on the Boards.ie membership.

And if the Board's moderators are operating on a nepotistic basis, shouldn't that be made apparent in the charter?

What I said privately to Plow man was true. And if you can point out something that is contentious then I will concede all points.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The moderators of the Christianity forum have a duty to uphold the charter and protect the obvious ethos of the forum. You have a recent history of inflammatory and insulting posting in the Christianity forum and your PM exchange shows little respect for the forum's ethos. While I don't believe a ban was warranted for one poster above any other under the specific circumstances of this particular on-thread exchange, you are walking a very thin line. If you continue to post in such a derisory fashion, even in response to others doing like-wise, the inevitable and deserved conclusion will be further moderator action.

Okay, tell me - how do you promote honest discussion in a charter that effectively says that Christianity must not be challenged?

I'm sorry, but it is not up to Boards.ie to promote Christianity above reason!!!

Did you read my posts? I said that as far as I can tell, only non-Christians have ever been infracted on this thread.

How do you choose moderators? Is it an advertising consideration?

And for the record, I said nothing to Plow man that could not have been inferred from his actions.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For future reference, I would recommend you read the forum charter carefully and only post accordingly. The best way to avoid moderator action is to ensure you follow due process; whether that be to report posts you find insulting rather than getting involved in on-thread spats &/or discussing any moderator action civilly before escalating to c-mods/DRP.

Okay, so I should constantly bombard moderators with complaints about the 'baulking' that occurs as a result of a cogent argument of an entirely reasonable view?

Can I quote you on that?

If I deserve a red card for saying 'You people' then what should happen to someone who calls me a 'muppet', or a 'retard', or, as Benny Cake effectively did, a 'dog'?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you are agreeable to the proposed change in ban then I'll go ahead and alter - or you can appeal to an administrator to review now.

I most certainly am not agreeable to this 'face-saving' compromise and would strongly suggest that the 'ethos' of the Christian forum charter should be made applicable to the 21st century A.D. and that the moderators should be moderated.

Masteroid

Oh, and let me add that Plow Man dismissed my expression of injustice as 'indignance'.

What was that about generalisations, again?

Masteroid

I'm sorry to labour this point but, Post 6539:

Kiwi in IE wrote:

Who cares Zombrex? One of the first things taught to you as a health professional wanting to practice in mental health is not to argue with delusion.

which is met with Post 6541:

JimiTime wrote:

Kiwi in IE wrote:

Awaiting delete of previous post and infraction/banning!

Why? Because you equated Christians with having mental health issues? I think its good that you can reveal your thoughts with clarity tbh. It informs posters as to where they stand in the spectrum of discussion with you. Its good to know when talking to you, that you believe you are talking to the equivalent of a Lomans patient when talking to a Christian.

Do you see what I mean by 'nepotism'?

Ickle Magoo

Masteroid, this thread is for the purpose of disputing your ban only and that is done by reading any and all related communication, either on thread or via PM. As per the dispute resolution guidelines above:

Private message conversations in relation to the topic at hand are ok to publish in this forum in an attempt to resolve an issue. This is contrary to normal Boards.ie Guidelines that permission be sought before publication of any PMs sent or received.

Please can an admin review as per Masteroid's request.

Dades

Masteroid, as Ickle Magoo has mentioned, PM correspondence between users and moderators on matters concerning dispute resolution are frequently used to gain background on disagreements, and this is expressly stated in the charter.

But the fact that you are concerned about this "private" conversation being aired is somewhat telling.

As per the DR process, Ickle Magoo has seen fit to lift your initial ban from the Christianity forum (a decision I agree with). Some more moderation was required in that thread to justify your ban, and I know the mods will take this on board going forward.

It should be noted that in megathreads it can be difficult to keep track of every post, and often it's the reported posts that get seen by the mods. You never reported a single post which is something I suggest you address in future, given the amount of posts you've quoted in this DR. Perhaps if you'd reported some of the above, this entire thread could have been avoided.

So, onto this:

How can you punish a man on the basis that he objected to being punished unfairly???

It's not about the objection - it's about the manner of the objection. Boards.ie mods are unpaid volunteers and because of this we strongly believe they should not be subjected to vitriol as part of that job.

Your PM's to Plowman were over the top and quite simply unecessary. If you had simply disagreed and taken this to DR, your ban would have been overturned and you'd be on your way. As it happened, your PMs got out of hand:

PM wrote:

I]named users[/I can be as rude to non-Christians as they like but when a non-Christian challenges a Christian with truth then the Christian Dictator bans him.

All of which shows the common lack of fibre and dishonesty among Christians.

And your own personal bias.

I have no wish to engage with someone I would consider in the same light as a cop who takes bribes. It's a matter of disgust.

I'm content to uphold Ickle Magoo's decision to leave a week's ban in place for your interaction with Plowman. In future bear in mind that the DR process will address any decision so that you don't need to resort PM battles. Also, report posts. It will assist the moderators in addressing contentious posts, as outlined above.

CMod decision upheld.
Resolved.

Masteroid

Dades wrote: »

But the fact that you are concerned about this "private" conversation being aired is somewhat telling.

Surely you mean that 'it would be telling if I was concerned about the PM being aired'?

Which I wasn't.

What I said was:

Masteroid wrote:

What I said privately to Plow man was true. And if you can point out something that is contentious then I will concede all points.

which in fact is an invitation to air the PM in question.

Dades wrote: »

As per the DR process, Ickle Magoo has seen fit to lift your initial ban from the Christianity forum (a decision I agree with). Some more moderation was required in that thread to justify your ban, and I know the mods will take this on board going forward.

I hope so although it does remain to be seen.

Dades wrote: »

It should be noted that in megathreads it can be difficult to keep track of every post, and often it's the reported posts that get seen by the mods. You never reported a single post which is something I suggest you address in future, given the amount of posts you've quoted in this DR. Perhaps if you'd reported some of the above, this entire thread could have been avoided.

I am happy to assist in equitable moderation but that would do nothing to address the open prejudice shown in the actual process of infracting.

Suppose for example my last post in the mega-thread had been reported. Should the moderator view that post in context or in isolation?

Dades wrote: »

So, onto this:

It's not about the objection - it's about the manner of the objection. Boards.ie mods are unpaid volunteers and because of this we strongly believe they should not be subjected to vitriol as part of that job.

Your PM's to Plowman were over the top and quite simply unecessary. If you had simply disagreed and taken this to DR, your ban would have been overturned and you'd be on your way. As it happened, your PMs got out of hand:

I would agree that out of context this is indeed how it looks.

However, I was hoping that you would take into account the frustration caused by the deliberate derailment of my line of reasoning. This ban was quite obviously a 'gagging' attempt which any free-thinker would be deeply offended by.

And I was and although I may have been a little too direct, I was totally justified.

Since you have found Plowman to be culpable in relation to the original ban it seems illogical to enforce a ban that was 'piggy-backed' onto it.

If I'm to be penalised for my culpability then shouldn't Plowman also be penalised for his?

Surely the prejudicial nature of the original ban should count for something in my favour?

And putting the whole thing down to 'a bad hair day' would seem to be the most equitable solution.

That way, everyone can walk away from this a little wiser, a little more respectful and all penalties can be justifiably waived.

Dades wrote: »

I'm content to uphold Ickle Magoo's decision to leave a week's ban in place for your interaction with Plowman. In future bear in mind that the DR process will address any decision so that you don't need to resort PM battles. Also, report posts. It will assist the moderators in addressing contentious posts, as outlined above.

CMod decision upheld.
Resolved.

I may or may not report posts in the future but I can't consider this dispute 'resolved' since I am still experiencing tension.

And since the original ban was overturned I would request that the deleted post that earned this lifted ban be entered into the thread as the newest post.

No-one had the chance to read or respond to that post and it would be disingenuous to 'undelete' the post and bury it in pages past.

Also, I undertake to moderate my expession when communicating with moderators in the future.

Dades

For the record, you can consider the ban(s) as given to you by Plowman as lifted, and the weeks ban you subsequently received as separate, and to do only with your PMs. Ultimately, it's semantics.

Regarding reported posts, you lend a lot more weight to any argument you put forward which quotes other users where you have actually reported those posts. Remember, other posters may be reporting you, and moderators cannot be expected to read every single post of every single thread.

All the best.

Masteroid

Dades wrote: »

For the record, you can consider the ban(s) as given to you by Plowman as lifted, and the weeks ban you subsequently received as separate, and to do only with your PMs.

I understand that but I was attempting to point out the flaw in the logic of that approach.

We all agree that I was unfairly banned and this has resulted in the bans handed down to me by Plowman being lifted.

It follows that my PM was a reaction to an unjust action and the original ban cannot be divorced from the motivation behind the PM.

If the original decision has been judged to have been unfair then all that follows from that unfair decision can be considered in the same way as an argument for self-defence.

To make an analogy, it is as if Plowman kicked me in the nuts whereupon I punched him in the mouth. Plowman then arrests me and sentences me for assault.

However, it transpires during the appeal process that Plowman kicked me in the nuts and that is what precipitated the punch in the mouth.

The appeal board then decide that it was wrong for Plowman to kick me in the nuts but there is no penalty and that I should serve the sentence imposed by Plowman for not going to the police.

So, Plowman acts unreasonably and suffers no consequences and sees his original ban implemented anyway whereas I act in an understandable manner considering the circumstances and get a ban.

And the post that got me unfairly banned is deleted.

This is 'stealth gagging'.

What kind of message does this send?

Dades wrote: »

Ultimately, it's semantics.

What do you mean?

Yes, it is semantics but I find it shocking that someone who is charged with examining evidence should dismiss semantics.

If we are going to ignore semantics then what is the point of an appeals board?

If you are not interested in the meaning of the written word then on what basis do you judge what is acceptable and what is not?

Quite shocking but I did have a feeling that my posts within this thread were not being read properly.

oscarBravo

How about we parse the finer semantics of "Admin decision is final."

This dispute is resolved.